Ogdensburg City Council tables charter changes
Two members of City Council ― Michael Powers and Donna Trimm ― were absent from Monday night's meeting that mainly consisted of a public hearing and then a resolution to adopt a number of recommendations from the Charter Review Commission to the City Charter, a wide-ranging document that lays the framework for how Ogdensburg's municipal government is operated.
Proposed changes included allowing non-residency of the city manager and department heads at the discretion of City Council, small salary raises for council members, and other changes such as allowing for the city manager to have discretionary power to spend up to $10,000 without council approval.
Following a public hearing, Mayor Michael Tooley said that it was decided that no action would be taken on the resolution until the entire council was present to vote on the City Charter changes.
Council heard from two city residents during the public hearing, Macreena Doyle and Kit Smith, who both opposed changing the residency requirement, which dominated the discussion. That proposal from the Charter Commission moved forward with a 7-2 vote and was the "most in-depth" discussion of the commission's previous meetings.
Doyle said that she agrees that those making the decisions about the city should live in the community because "they are going to be affected by the same policies that they are making."
She added that council needs to look at ways to improve housing stock, improve neighborhoods and make it so any prospective city manager candidate would want to live in Ogdensburg.
Smith, who retired as the director of the city Department of Public Works after nearly 17 years, moved to Ogdensburg to take the position.
"I came from Morristown. When I was hired by the city of Ogdensburg, it was an opportunity that I felt was worth selling my house in Morristown for and moving to the city of Ogdensburg," Smith said. " It gave me an opportunity to know the people, be part of the people, join a number of clubs ― the Lions, the Boys and Girls Club and other civic organizations. I really feel the residency law should stay. I don't feel you can be a good department head without being a part of the community."
Councilor Daniel Skamperle said that he understood the arguments presented by the public and that he would be thinking about how he will vote in the near future. He did say that it would be a shame to lose a good candidate for a position, just because he or she wouldn't move into the city.
"It's something that is going to be on our mind, thanks for bringing it up," Skamperle said.
It appears that the residency proposal may not have support from all members of City Council.
One of those was Councilor Jennifer Stevenson.
"I have heard from many citizens over time and I have thought about it extensively," Stevenson said. "I have spoken to numerous past city managers and one of them said to me 'I wanted to live within the city because I wanted to be the neighbor of the people that I was working with. The people that I was affecting by the budget being presented by my staff, the rules and regulations and the departments that work for me. I wanted people to be able to stop by my porch and talk to me.'"
She did say that perhaps the council vote on residency could be a super majority vote, requiring five votes instead of the normal four.
Councilor R. Storm Cilley said that he is generally in favor of maintaining a residency requirement but agreed with Stevenson's proposal for a super majority vote, if it came to that.
Councilor John Tebo felt that the manager and department heads should have a "vested interest."
"I just think that if you want to work for the city of Ogdensburg you should have to live in the city limits," Tebo said.
Tooley said that council had asked the commission to review the residency requirement because of an issue with a failure of the city to fill vacant positions within city government.
He added that council could amend the recommendation to make it so the department head or city manager would have to live in St. Lawrence County, which would align the policy with others across the state.
"If residency requirement is waived, the employee must still reside in the county. Ogdensburg for a few years has experienced vacancies in important administrative and public official positions. I would say it was one of the reasons that a request for flexibility was made to the commission," Tooley said.
Another recommendation called for an increase in compensation for the mayor and councilors. The commission proposed an increase of $3,000 for the mayor's salary, bringing it up to $10,000, and $1,500 increases for councilors to a total of $5,000 for each. That change, if adopted, would take effect Jan. 1, 2026.
Stevenson proposed that the raises, if approved, would not go into effect until after the next election.
The entirety of the proposed changes to the charter can be found on the July 28 City Council agenda on the city's website, www.ogdensburg.org.
The charter was last reviewed in 2017. The lone change that was adopted by council on Nov. 27, 2017, was changing the length of time in between the convening of the commission from 10 years to 6. In 2023, City Council changed the length of time back to 10 years before the current governing body convened the commission last fall.
In other City Council action:
The city directed City Manager Fonda Chronis to accept a Wastewater Infrastructure Engineering Planning Grant (EPG) from the Environmental Facilities Corporation of New York State for $100,000. The city would have to provide a local share of 20%, or $20,000, to perform an inflow and infiltration study on a "portion of city sewer infrastructure to determine areas where wastewater and stormwater are combined and sent to the wastewater treatment plant for processing."
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Count 'em all — Trump has no authority to muck with 2030 Census Bureau count
Not caring about the U.S. Constitution is a regular refrain for President Donald Trump, who now wants to exclude undocumented people from the 2030 census count — a nonstarter as much else is in this bizarro world we now inhabit, promulgated via a screed on his Truth Social platform — is both a terrible idea and certainly a rehash. Trump attempted something similar during his first term in office as the 2020 census closed in, deciding to suddenly include a citizenship question in the count, a move promptly blocked by the courts. Now Trump's trying to go whole hog and exclude the undocumented altogether, in doing so going against the plain language of the Constitution, which unambiguously mandates the count 'of the whole number of persons' in each state. The chief executive certainly seems to care less about the letter of the law and the orders of judges this time around, though these will still slap him down. It's worth noting, though, that even if and when a judge makes the easiest ruling of a career and strikes down any directive to exclude from the census anyone based on citizenship or immigration status, that's not necessarily mission accomplished. Trump and Stephen Miller's all-out campaign of shock and awe and terror against immigrants around the country is designed at least in part to create an environment of fear and concern that will discourage people from participating in all facets of civic and public life, including the mandated decennial count. The Census Bureau itself found that it probably failed to count up to millions of noncitizens, largely because many declined to participate out of a fear that it would put them on the administration's radar and target list. So Trump was able to accomplish some of his aims, even without the directive technically being in place, and that was in an environment less hostile than now. New York infamously lost a House seat because it came up just 89 people short in the 2020 count, which is almost certainly a partial result of Trump's meddling last time around. That extra seat could have made a real difference in a House of Representatives that is so narrowly controlled by the GOP, which itself seems to understand itself as a mere arm of the Trump administration. Neither Trump, nor his top echelon of grifters and ideologues are going to be personally conducting the census count, though. That is left to a small army of temporary public servants overseen by career officials within the Census Bureau, and these folks will hopefully recall that their responsibility is to this important constitutional mandate and not to Trump. The one-time real estate promoter is fully incapable of seeing anything except in terms of monetary or political gain, and probably sees an attempt to exclude the undocumented from the census as good red meat for the base. However, the census guides everything in the United States — not just apportionment and representation in the Congress and the Electoral College, but disaster planning, disease preparedness, allocation of federal resources, and all manner of private-sector uses like demographic data for business development and so on. Ironically, huge chunks of those that would go uncounted under Trump's illegal decree would be in the red states like Florida and Texas, which Trump claims to want to support. The whole idea is pointless, damaging and unconstitutional. _____
USA Today
26 minutes ago
- USA Today
Congress must hear from Jeffrey Epstein's victims about Ghislaine Maxwell's role
Trump is openly mulling a pardon for a known liar who could benefit from spinning a favorable tale about him, while two Congress members are using their posts to give the women she victimized a voice. Lawyers for a convicted child sex trafficker got right to the point recently while seeking to prevent the public release of testimony from the grand jury that indicted her. "Jeffrey Epstein is dead. Ghislaine Maxwell is not," they wrote in an Aug. 5 legal brief, opposing the release of those records. That blunt and binary assessment – Epstein died from an apparent suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, Maxwell is serving a 20-year federal prison sentence – didn't have much to say about the other people involved in this metastasizing scandal in Donald Trump's second term as president: the victimized underage girls who are still seeking justice years later. Maxwell has been the center of attention – and, so far, a beneficiary of it – in this scandal. But in three weeks, we'll focus instead on some of those victims. Sounds like they have plenty to share about her. House Speaker Johnson wants Epstein files to just go away U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, have jointly announced that they will hold a Sept. 3 news conference at the U.S. Capitol to hear from those victims and their attorneys while pressing for passage of their bipartisan legislation to release what has become known as the "Epstein files." That bill, the Epstein Files Transparency Act, has 11 Republican and 33 Democratic cosponsors. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, found a vote on that bill so concerning in July that he sent the House members home early for the summer break to avoid it. Opinion: Epstein accomplice Maxwell angles for a Trump pardon. Would she lie to help him? "We're not going to play political games with this," Johnson said at a July 22 news conference while openly, publicly playing political games to snuff out a bipartisan move for transparency. Johnson's punt bought a little time for Trump, who used to hang out with Epstein and Maxwell and has been haunted of late by a 2002 New York magazine interview, in which he said Epstein was "a lot of fun to be with" and "likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." All eyes now on Ghislaine Maxwell and possible pardon But this isn't going away, despite Trump's flailing efforts to quiet the controversy. And Massie and Khanna are platforming exactly who we need to hear from in this scandal – the victims – while Maxwell's turn in the congressional spotlight is still very much up in the air. She was subpoenaed in July to testify from behind bars this week for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. But that was postponed indefinitely, in part because Maxwell has an appeal for her conviction being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court and because she demanded congressional immunity, and the committee refused. That's a rare setback for Maxwell, who has used her infamy to rack up something of a winning streak as Trump struggles with the Epstein scandal. Maxwell, who was convicted of recruiting underage victims and coaching them to have sex with Epstein while sometimes joining in, got her way when a federal judge in New York on Aug. 11 declined to release that grand jury testimony. Two days of secretive interviews in July with a top Department of Justice official – who once served as Trump's private lawyer – won Maxwell a transfer from a women's prison in Florida to a much cushier federal camp in Texas. Her lawyers are now angling to win her a pardon from Trump, something he feels regularly obliged to note publicly that he is allowed to do. Opinion: Republicans in Congress head home to angry voters. So much for summer break. So Trump is openly mulling a pardon for a known liar who could benefit from spinning a favorable tale about him in this scandal. And Massie and Khanna are using their congressional posts to give voice to those Maxwell victimized for Epstein. Really, who are you rooting for here? If you find yourself on Team Maxwell, a growing chorus among many of Trump's most MAGA media supporters, you're going to bat for a woman who recruited and sexually abused children. That's ugly stuff, a perversion of political partisanship so profoundly grotesque that it has broken through and overcome that constant stream of chaos Trump has been deploying to distract America. This scandal won't dissipate in the summer heat, just because that's what Trump wants. American voters – Republicans, Democrats and independents – are calling for transparency. Congress must provide it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.
Fast Company
26 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Sustainable aviation fuels were making progress before federal budget cuts
The federal spending law passed in early July 2025, often called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, significantly reduces federal funding for efforts to create renewable or sustainable types of fuel that can power aircraft over long distances while decreasing the damage aviation does to the global climate. Aviation contributed about 2.5% of global carbon emissions in 2023. It's particularly hard to reduce emissions from planes because there are few alternatives for large, portable quantities of energy-dense fuel. Electric batteries with enough energy to power an international flight, for instance, would be much larger and heavier than airplane fuel tanks. One potential solution, which I work on as an aerospace engineer, is a category of fuel called ' sustainable aviation fuel.' Unlike conventional jet fuel, which is refined from petroleum, sustainable aviation fuels are produced from renewable and waste resources such as used cooking oil, agricultural leftovers, algae, sewage, and trash. But they are similar enough to conventional jet fuels that they work in existing aircraft tanks and engines without any major modifications. Prior to Donald Trump's second term as president, the U.S. government had set some bold targets: by 2030, producing 3 billion gallons of this type of fuel every year, and by 2050, producing enough to fuel every U.S. commercial jet flight. But there's a long journey ahead. A range of source materials The earliest efforts to create sustainable aviation fuels relied on food crops —turning corn into ethanol or soybean oil into biodiesel. The raw materials were readily available, but growing them competed with food production. The next generation of biofuels are using nonfood sources such as algae, or agricultural waste such as manure or stalks from harvested corn. These don't compete with food supplies. If processed efficiently, they also have the potential to emit less carbon: Algae absorb carbon dioxide during their growth, and using agricultural waste avoids its decomposition, which would release greenhouse gases. But these biofuels are harder to produce and more expensive, in part because the technologies are new, and in part because there are not yet logistics systems in place to collect, transport, and process large quantities of source material. Some researchers are working to create biofuels with the help of genetically modified bacteria that convert specific raw materials into biofuel. In one method, algae are grown to produce sugars or oils, which are then fed to engineered bacteria that turn them into usable fuels, such as ethanol, butanol,, or alkanes. In another effort, photosynthetic microbes such as cyanobacteria are modified to directly convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into fuel. All of these approaches—and others being explored as well—aim to create sustainable, carbon-neutral alternatives to fossil fuels. Exciting as it sounds, most of this technology is still locked away in labs, not available in airports. Blends are being tested At present, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration allows airlines to fuel their aircraft with blends of up to 50% sustainable aviation fuel mixed with conventional jet fuel. The exact percentage depends on how the fuel was made, which relates to how chemically and physically similar it is to petroleum-based jet fuel, and therefore how well it will work in existing aircraft tanks, pipes, and engines. There are two major hurdles to wider adoption: cost and supply. Sustainable fuels are much more expensive than traditional jet fuel, with cost differences varying by process and raw material. For instance, the raw price of Jet-A, the most common petroleum-based aviation fuel, had a wholesale price averaging $2.34 per gallon in 2024, but one type of sustainable fuel wholesaled at about $5.20 per gallon that year. The federal budget enacted in July 2025 reduces government subsidies, effectively raising the cost of making these fuels. In part because of cost, sustainable fuel is produced only in small quantities: In 2025, global production is expected to be about 2 million metric tons of the fuel, which is less than 1% of the worldwide demand for aviation fuel. There is international pressure to increase demand: Starting in January 2025, all jet fuel supplied at airports in the European Union must include at least 2% sustainable fuel, with minimum percentages increasing over time. Planes can use these fuels Companies such as General Electric and Rolls-Royce have shown that the jet engines they manufacture can run perfectly on sustainable fuels. However, sustainable aviation fuels can have slightly different density and energy content from standard jet fuel. That means the aircraft's weight distribution and flight range could change. And other parts of the aircraft also have to be compatible, such as those that store, pump, and maintain the balance of the fuel. That includes valves, pipes, and rubber seals. As a visiting professor at Boeing in the summer of 2024, I learned that it and other aircraft manufacturers are working closely with their suppliers to ensure sustainable aviation fuels can be safely and reliably integrated into every part of the aircraft. Those finer details are why headlines you may have seen about flights that burn ' 100% sustainable aviation fuel ' are not quite the full story. Usually, the fuel on those flights contains a small amount of conventional jet fuel or special additives. That's because sustainable fuels lack some of the aromatic chemical compounds found in fossil-based fuels that are required to maintain proper seals throughout the aircraft's fuel system. Good promise, with work ahead While many details remain, sustainable aviation fuels offer a promising way to reduce the carbon footprint of air travel without reinventing or redesigning entire airplanes. These fuels can significantly cut carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft in use today, helping reduce the severity of climate change. The work will take research and investment from governments, manufacturers, and airlines around the world, whether or not the U.S. is involved. But one day, the fuel powering your flight could be much greener than it is now.
